Fear of the past masks fear of the present and future

The report that Kevin Rudd has earmarked the opening of Parliament on February 12 as the due season for an apology to the stolen generation has set off some predictable caterwauling from the self-styled conservative element about intergenerational guilt and false priorities. The faux argument about an apology being inextricably linked to compensation seems to be rebuffed by the conspicious lack of actions against state governments who have issued similar apologies for past mistreatment. The real reason for the garbage associated with any call for an apology has to do with insecurity and a failure of political and moral leadership. The problem for self-styled conservatives in the mould of Howard and Nelson is that it is in their self-interest to encourage such false beliefs and insecurities to deflect attention from both social inequity and the pressures created by their free market brand of economics. If the punters cannot be bound together by a positive sense of the tribe's achievements but are forced to consider their possibly murky past, they may realise that men such as Howard and Nelson may not necessarily act in a bona fide manner and that such actions have a direct, detrimental effect on their lives.

The kernel of opposition to an apology is that the present generation is not responsible. This is a wilful misrepresentation of the issue. Rudd's proposed apology is on behalf of the nation, for acts performed on the orders of the state in the name of the citizens of that nation. It is a collective acknowledgement that such actions were in many cases detrimental to the people involved and the nation no longer believes such policies to be appropriate. For the Howard-Nelson clique, apparently pride in the achievement of one's forebears is perfectly acceptable, but regret at their actions is not. By making the apology issue personal, they actually undermine their project to develop a national mythology, enshrining the Anzac spirit at Gallipoli as the epitome of Australian virtue. It shows maturity to face up to one's mistakes, swallow one's pride and apologise for harm caused.

Instead, we are told that at least half the population is being misled so we behave like historical kindergarten kids. A society that cannot accept fault is on a collision course with disaster. With challenges such as climate change, an ageing population, diminishing resources and burgeoning health costs, surely our society is best served by encouraging us to think about how we do things, what effect our actions have on the present and future generations, and not just whether it suits us or makes us feel uncomfortable to think beyond the plasmascreen and picket fence.

Conservatism should be about preserving the institutions that make the country great and upholding the values that improve the country further. It should not be about misleading individuals with tales of ill-founded guilt or compensation-seeking bogeymen while pushing through reforms that undermine those very institutions and values.

The New Segregationists

Heath Ledger's premature death is a tragedy for his family and for his many fans, colleagues and admirers of his work. Who knows what masterly performances he may have given us, with some acclaiming him to be a young Jack Nicholson. A further tragedy is the bizarre behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church, who plan to picket Ledger's funeral on the basis that he was a 'fag-enabler' through his role in Brokeback Mountain. These petty-minded firebrands are making a mockery of the American ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. One presumes that when Reagan and Bush went on ad infinitum about 'freedom', that was what they had in mind.

The Westboro insurgents present the Christian Right and those seeking its support for their presidential ambitions with a choice. They can draw a line in the sand and say that these proclaimed defenders of decency are a blight on civil society or they can adopt a craven position of expedient acquiesence. Westboro's rhetoric is reminiscent of the criticism levelled against whites who sympathised with oppressed blacks, a newspeak rendering of 'nigger-lover', a term so loaded in American discourse it can only be printed as 'n*****'. However taking a firm hand against such abuses does not seem to be on the agenda in a political climate where no one even mentions Governor Huckabee's evocation of the Confederate flag issue - code for slavery and all manner of inhumanity - during his South Carolina campaign.

In fact, the entire project of the Christian Right is reminiscent of the old segregationists. Segregationist policy was premised on Jim Crow laws mandating 'separate but equal' treatment for black and white. This fudge meant that as long as one provided facilities for both black and white patrons, one complied with the language of equality. In reality, Jim Crow was a vehicle to hide racist policy behind a legalistic veneer, upheld by the US Supreme Court for nearly sixty years. The Christian Right's shameless manipulation of its churches to deliver electoral success evokes such as a legalistic fudge. Under the Internal Revenue Code, churches can only retain tax-exempt status by not endorsing or opposing specific candidates. To get around this injunction, many churches publish the equivalent of how-to-vote guides detailing candidates positions on a broad range of issues. However, the key vehicle is the use of questions on abortion and marriage. The last US election was held in conjunction with marriage-related referenda in at least a dozen states. The implicit aim was to encourage voter turnout on these issues and hence maximise Republicans chances of re-election nationwide.

Interestingly, the only instance this blog has noted of criticism being levied at a church for involvement in politics was against an anti-war rector. However, not satisfied with this position of formalistic legality, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma proposed amending the law in 2006 to allow churches to endorse candidates and maintain tax-exempt status. If such proposals were to come to pass, the American political system may look more like the Puritan English Commonwealth of Cromwell than the Jeffersonian Republic.

Lame excuse for a bunch of lame ducks

The good burghers of the Liberal party are going to stick their collective heads together and ponder where everything is going wrong. In a unique inversion of recent Liberal machinations, the Federal leadership in the person of Brendan Nelson is not invited. In explaining the omission of His Hairship, Victorian Liberal leader (and now senior budgie-smuggler following the post-election demise of Peter Debnam) Ted Bailleu said that Nelson had not been elected when the invitations went out.

That seemed a little trite, given that Queensland's bunch of herded cats changed its leader after the elevation of Nelson to the Federal leadership. The new leader, Mark McArdle, appears to have been invited. Precisely what advice Mr McArdle, the compromise one step removed from the old Athenian 'draw straws' method could offer remains moot. Given the Nationals are trying to absorb the Liberals, it probably is not going to be on the subject of electoral viability. Furthermore, the newly minted Western Australian opposition leader, Troy Buswell, gets the pleasure of a phone-hook up. Troy-boy was elected last week, presumably on the basis of polls which showed that people want to vote for the Libs, it is just that the leadership is mediocre at best. After saying he needed more experience, the next story was Buswell's election. Apparently he needed only a couple of hours.

Apparently Nelson will call his own meeting later in the year to discuss the party's future direction. Which is fine, except it looks horribly like his fellow leaders are plotting whether they actually think he is in their best interests and that he announced his conference in response to theirs. That an octet of leadership with the collective colour of a miso-soup menu left him off their bill and that Nelson could not put a stop to this meeting and re-direct discussions onto his agenda shows a remarkable loss of coherency in the party and a marked lack of respect for the leader. Perhaps Liberal state leaders are left in a quandary: having determined public service provision was not their bag, and with the federal parties encroaching on their areas of traditional responsibility, they do not actually know where they fit in the modern political landscape. In that light, it would make sense to have a provincial level conference of leaders. However, given the discussion is about the essential role played by Liberal parties at all levels of the process, both practically and philosophically, and that Nelson has considerably more experience of anything close to power than most of his counterparts, his omission sends a not so subtle message.

Republican primaries - a race where the first prize is defeat?

It is now a truth universally acknowledged that the US Presidential election is a race in want of a frontrunner. The Republicans want to find someone who fits their base and electability conditions in the mould of Bush (the Younger), while the Democrats desire a latter-day (Bill) Clinton. The irony is that the very models themselves are the subject of widespread opprobrium.

From Peregrine's distant vista, it appears that American voters favour candidates with gubernatorial experience. Being a governor requires a blend of popular familiarity and demonstrated competence. This dynamic is probably indicative of hardening party allegiances and the role of mega-media campaigning, replete with brief images and soundbite policy snippets. Senators rely on building local rapport within their state, but not so much on the machinery of electioneering. Many occupy their seats forever. Senators read an awful lot of legislation, but do not actually run much outside their own election. Note that two of the Democrats, Obama and Edwards have a net total of two terms of senatorial experience.

Of course, the American course of electoral honours only has so much influence on the voters. Beneath that litmus test of ability come a multitude of other issues. Race, religious persuasion, moral values and management and military credentials all feed in to determine voter allegiance, both for and against. Given the incredible diversity of the US, a race without a clear candidate that fits the profile is bound to throw up all sort of electoral college permutations. Add the issue of fundraising and the picture is further complicated.

The Republican electoral machine relies on a large number of poor whites voting on racial and religious lines against their own economic interests. With the entry of illegal immigration into the electoral mix, race issues are bound to come to the fore in the manner that gay marriage brought religious issues to the surface. Huckabee, Romney and Thompson are in battle for these votes, a battle Huckabee is winning. However, Thompson's presence in the race should dilute Huckabee's advantage and keep McCain's conviction and experience platform running. If Thompson drops out, Huckabee will get a lot more votes from the Republican base.

Romney's strategy to run on the economy (and target the empty fields of Wyoming and Nevada) means his true opponents are probably McCain and Guiliani. Guiliani and Romney have a lot of money to roll into campaigning, whereas McCain is on a tightrope given his poor showing. One thing is clear: Guiliani must get close in Florida otherwise he will simply lack the numbers. McCain needs to capitalise on his media attention to convince enough self-interested Republicans that he is electable.

Following the gubernatorial formula, Romney becomes a dark horse, although his candidacy depends on acceptance of his widely-commented Mormon faith. If he can overcome this prejudice, which is pretty unlikely given the depth of feeling among evangelicals, a Democrat victory would be assured because their energised turnout would easily overcome a lukewarm base. Hence he will not win the nomination. Huckabee's position depends on him winning states like Florida and Texas, because he has not got a candle in the west or north-east.

The big question is will McCain have enough money to take on a fresh foe in Guiliani. Romney and McCain will probably have to win either California or Florida to offset Guiliani's appeal in the north-east. Despite looking for all purposes dead, Guiliani's decision to conserve his energies gives him a good chance to gain late momentum. But he must convert Florida. One suspects that McCain, having campaigned hard and got a lot of attention, will hold Guiliani on national security. A poor finish by McCain in Florida would be dangerous, a poor finish for Guiliani could be catastrophic.

One interesting point is that Guiliani's moral record, Romney's Mormonism and McCain's bipartisanship make all of them dubious propositions in the South, where the majority of Republican states lie. Huckabee's popularist policy makes him a hot potato for Northern Republicans enconscened in Wall Street. Thompson, the other conservative white meat, lacks the vigour for a full tilt campaign. It appears the Republicans best chance lies with McCain: the maverick may finally get to have a tilt at the Democrats.

If McCain is the nominee, he will face hesistant supporters unconvinced on his social and moral stands, and against the tide on immigration. The Democrats will be waiting to avenge the Bush years, typified by the Bush debacle.

Heavy artillery key to Australia's streak

Australia faces a Herculaean task to win the Third Test and become the side with the most Test wins in succession. As any all-conquering side such as the Melbourne Storm or Sydney Kings might tell you, winning a lot of games in succession only puts you closer to your next loss. Despite that somewhat gloomy axiom, Australia's dominance of the Test cricket scene has an inherent weakness. It relies on imposing its will on the opposition by a strategy of all-out attack. In a batsman-friendly era where bowlers are fairly mediocre, bats so dense as to seemingly exert their own gravitational pull on the ball and boundaries so short that Darren Lehmann's locks look luscious in comparison, this strategy is generally a winning one.

However, if the ball swings, bounces excessively or does anything beyond the parameters regarded as normal, the penchant for attack becomes self-defeating. Australia's kamikaze approach in the first innings bears this out. The divine wind for India sprang up from the east and they made full use of it. The normally cannon-fodder line of half volley outside off-stump became a Psiren call to the grave, as such level-headed souls as Mike Hussey perished driving through the off-side. That Michael Clarke still has a clear weakness against swing bowling (and a bizarre impetuousity to take off when hitting the ball to backward point) adds another wobble to the equation. Ten years ago, perhaps fifteen, Australia would have contented itself with a score of say, 4 for 200 after day 2. Caution, however, is in short supply in the dominating mindset and hence the entire side lasted a paltry fifty overs.

If Australia are to complete the streak, they will have to win in spite of the manner in which they won sixteen Tests, not because of it. Already in this innings, Rogers and Jaques have perished courtesy of Pathan's rejuvenated movement. The pitch itself possesses relatively few terrors at this stage and is as benign a fourth-innings surface seen since Gilchrist and Langer won the Hobart Test against Pakistan. The dangers, much like with the original kamikaze, are in the air and in the psychological disturbance those raids create. Australia's relentless charge is reminiscent of the great conquest of Sulemain, the Ottoman emperor who took the Turks all the way to the gates of Vienna. However Sulemain's campaign relied on its great cannons for its success. When the rain fell, the cannons became stuck in the mud, rendered useless by the elements. The Austrian army escaped, and the Turkish charge was halted.

To win tomorrow, Australia will have to bat judiciously, seeing off the swinging ball and making the most of tiring bowlers. Both sides have found it hard to remove middle-order batsmen once the swing slows and the wind dies down. If Australia have sufficient wickets in hand to capitalise on those opportunities, they may well find themselves in rarefied run-chasing territory.

On YouTube everyone can hear you scream, just ask Marcos Baghdatis

Just when communicating had reached new heights, things have gone a step further. We have now become accustomed to the incredible utility of email to send both professional and personal correspondence. It has become second nature to 'google', tapping into the meta-searching oracle of the modern age. These changes, while revolutionary, give all but the most careless users control over their information and reputation. Individuals can maintain a level of privacy without taking too many precautions.

The next wave of social networking sites changes the equation. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube offer users a tremendous opportunity to tap into the global information stream and gain instant notoriety. The massive increase in processing capacity means that videoclips are now the media of the moment. The important detail here is that video can be both in the form of a deliberately devised skit or simply filming the activities of others. It appears this has happened to the (Greek) Cypriot tennis player Marcos Baghdatis, who has some fairly unsavoury friends who have recently developed a taste for pepper spray.

Clearly, there is a very high potential here for embarassing footage to see the light of day. An individual's control over their own image is greatly reduced. This may lead to greater accountability and accompanying caution by figures in public life. It is almost certain that many of these clips will end up in court. Lawmakers will shortly be faced with the challenge of how to handle possibly defamatory images of individuals taken and or published without their consent.

None of the above makes a late run to challenge Hillary

The extraordinary machinations that make up the American political system may be about to turn the strangest result of all. In the bid to gain relevance, states have moved their primaries ever forward to the point where practically the entire race will be decided on one afternoon. The piqued Democratic and Republican parties have responded to this by penalising a number of states their seats at the September conferences to elect their party nominees. One such state is Michigan, which being without either historical or democratic reasons for its early primary, has provoked the Democratic party into voiding its entire one-hundred and fifty-six delegate representation. As there are no votes on the floor available, Obama and Edwards have pulled out, while Clinton will not campaign. Voters have the option to vote 'uncommitted', which translates to 'none of the above'.

Obama and Edwards have hit upon the unique idea of rather than handing a cheap win to Clinton, or possibly even a nonentity such as Kucnich (however worthy his programme might be), they are advocating Democratic voters vote 'uncommitted'. Uncommitted seems the perfect word to describe an American polity where the Democrats are locked in an acrimonious struggle, while the Republicans have one frontrunner in hiding hoarding his campaign cash, one yet to win anything beyond the backwoods of Wyoming and two others seemingly at war with the party. If anyone knows how this lot will play out, please give me a call with next week's lotto numbers.

Peregrine now believes that Clinton and Obama represent a true generational contest between opposing schools of philosophical thought. Clinton stands for the first generation postmodernist school of feminist power, playing on her standing with women voters and the politics of struggle for minority rights dating back to the Civil Rights era. Obama stands for the second generation, post-identity politics. Rather than run as a black candidate, Obama is running as a Democratic idealist, a self-confessed 'hopemonger'. Interestingly, Obama's reaching across the black-white divide continues a trend begun by Bush, with his open appeal to Hispanic voters and promotion of Rice and Powell to the Secretary of State position.

On the Republican side, Huckabee represents the party's adoption of a predominantly Baptist support base taken to its logical conclusion. Or illogical conclusion if President Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, has to deal with Pakistan. A hokey name may be the least of his worries. McCain has finally begun to mention his role in backing climate change action, which must surely be his best card in being the surrogate Schwarzenegger. One suspects that Schwarzenegger may play a key role in McCain's election chances, particularly with the California primary. As a conviction politician, McCain may command as many votes from respect as outright support, as rivals such as Romney and Guiliani are severely lacking in this department.